D&D 5E 75% Games lvl 1-6

[Fanaelialae]

The level 20 figures also confirm my suspicions: players will create level 20 builds directly, either to experiment, or play end game. I suspect most level 20 PCs were never actually played all the way through. This seems to confirm that

That explanation is certainly one possibility.

However, assuming that they tried to filter out characters that were created but never played, level 20 characters would tend to accumulate over time. The other levels are transitory but once you hit 20 that's it. As such, it would make sense for 20th level characters to accumulate over time, despite the dearth of characters in the levels preceding it. Presumably, the only way to remove such a character from the data set at that point would be to delete it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

In previous videos (haven't watched this one through) they say they judge if a character is played by whether the HP total is changed over time.

That would be nice if that was the case and would lend reliability to their numbers.

Either way, in all the editions and campaigns I have played in the last 40 years, games drift off as soon as 7th level, but often it is at least 10-15th levels before we stop. I was lucky back in high school to have one character in BECMI make it past 30th level and into the Immortals game. Pretty crazy stuff, let me tell you... Another character in college in 1e/2e made it to just over 4 million XP, but that over 5 years of playing and more crazy stuff.

 

[JeffB]

This is where I think 13th Age really did a fantastic job. Set a level cap of 10. 3 "tiers" (ala 4E), and pack a significant but manageable power jump as you get into each tier. Keeps players and GMs interested through all 10 levels and the high level play does not get out of hand because the math works for combat rolls/skill checks/etc. For people who don't like to roll 10 dice for damage, there are easy peasy options (I haven't found this a problem, but it's easily surmounted if someone finds it is)

Anecdotal- Back in the 70s as kids we had some real monty haul/munchkin games, and my character- Skyhawk the Mighty, Paladin of Odin ( I was 8, cut me some slack)-made it to 20th level in about a year of play. But otherwise, we really only ran high level characters as one shot adventure things- We rolled up higher level characters for the Steading, or The Tomb , or whatever. "Campaign play" always fizzled out around 8-10. Thinking about it, this may have been a symptom of the transition from OD&D rules to AD&D, but IDK. It may also be because we got bored and always wanted to try something new or different- especially as the boom/market explosion really ramped up in 79-82. Someone would buy something new- a module or game, and we'd drop characters to make a new one of the appropriate level for the new adventure- or try out the new game and by the time we came back to D&D wanted to start something else instead of picking up where we left off. I personally don't really like long, drawn out campaigns for levels 1-15 or 20, and never have run them. For every WOTC edition so far, I'd say levels 10 and under is where it's at for "most fun".

 

[TwoSix]

Heh, it must be so frustrating for developers.

I mean, all the classes go to 20th level. There's a fair chunk of material in the PHB and the Monster Manual related to high level play (whether it's enough or not, I'm not commenting, just that there's a fair bit of it). Yet, no one ever actually plays that high of a level. 3e cut the leveling requirements significantly, 4e even more and 5e still more, and STILL everyone starts over at about name level.

That's a hell of a wall.

It's a pretty solid argument that E6 style play should be core. Advancement should be horizontal once a core competency is reached.

Edit: Although, to contradict my own point, I think 5e actually hits its sweet spot at higher level, between 9th and 14th. That's the point where build choices really start to carry some weight, and there's a good amount of differentiation in character abilities.

 

[Hussar]

While I obviously can't speak for them, I somewhat doubt it. They've made comments to the effect that they're aware that most campaigns will not make it to 20. Heck, I think that was part of their justification for why most of their published adventures don't go to 20.

Besides it's obviously not that "no one ever actually plays that high of a level". I'm running a campaign right now that has been going for over a year, 40+ sessions, and the party is around level 18. Barring a TPK, they're probably going to hit level 20 in two or three more sessions. This isn't the first high level campaign I've run in 5e. I'm highly doubtful that I'm the only DM running a game that's so high level, though I don't doubt that high level games are the minority. My point simply being that, the material does certainly get used and enjoyed.

Sorry, I said "no one" when I should have said, "not enough groups to make any significant difference".

If 75% of games are being run between 1st and 6th level, the curve from 7th to 20th would be pretty steep. Probably to the point where all the games from 10th-20th are a fraction of the games being run from 1st to 6th. That's what I meant by "no one".

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sorry, I said "no one" when I should have said, "not enough groups to make any significant difference".

If 75% of games are being run between 1st and 6th level, the curve from 7th to 20th would be pretty steep. Probably to the point where all the games from 10th-20th are a fraction of the games being run from 1st to 6th. That's what I meant by "no one".

I think the 75% is actually a mistake. Unless I am mistaken, it is actually 70%. But either way that's between roughly 1 out of 3 and 1 in 4 characters that advance beyond level 6. And, by my count, roughly 1 in 10 that advance beyond level 10.

I'll grant that's not a majority by any means, but it's hardly insignificant.